Online Socio-emotional Dyad Training for Healthcare Students' Well-being and Social Skills

NCT07407413 | Not Yet Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: Edu:Social Health Care Project
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 360
• Locations: 0 countries
• Sites: N/A

Brief Summary

In this Edu:Social Health Care project, a randomized controlled trial with a socio-emotional intervention and a waitlist control group will be conducted to evaluate the effects of a partner-based empathy-compassion Dyad mental training (EmCo) intervention on healthcare students with regard to the following primary outcome domains: 1) mental health, 2) resilience, 3) social cohesion and support, 4) social skills, 5) coping and emotion regulation, and 6) social behaviors. One main goal is to examine the effects of such adapted 8-week EmCo Dyad intervention within the health care context, with a particular focus on strengthening students' mental health, resilience, social skills and behaviors, and social cohesion as well as fostering interprofessional attitudes by pairing every week study partners across different healthcare disciplines with each other for practicing their daily Dyads (e.g., nursing students will practice daily via app with medical students). A further aim is to validate the novel Dyad Voice Assessment (DYVA) task, which explores the use of app-based voice recordings as indicators of students' emotional states during their daily partner-based Dyad practice. By combining students' self-reported practice-related emotions with partner-based evaluations, this approach aims to generate new and innovate, more objective markers of training-induced changes in emotional processing and regulation over time in a real-live applied setting. The final aim is to investigate the cognitive and affective mechanisms and factors underlying observed changes in students' mental health, resilience, social cohesion, social skills and social behaviors, that may explain observed training-related effects in primary outcome domains. Based on previous research, we expect the socio-emotional EmCo Dyad training to activate evolutionary old care- and affiliation-based motivational systems that foster positive affect and motivation, acceptance, trust social capacities and behavioral tendencies. These processes should go along with reduction in loneliness, stress and other mental vulnerabilities (anxiety, depression, burn-out etc.) and foster social skills such as empathy, compassion as well as social cohesion and resilience.

Conditions

Intervention Condition; Control (Delayed Training) Condition

Keywords

Mental Training; Dyad Training; Compassionate-Listening; Empathic-Listening; Empathy; Compassion; Mental-Health; Online & App-based Training; Resilience; Social Cohesion; Social Kills; AI-based Voice Assessment; Healthcare students

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (17)

• Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21)

  A scale measuring depression, anxiety, and stress (Henry \& Crawford, 2005; Nilges \& Essau, 2021). Higher scores indicate more depression, anxiety, and stress.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2)

• Maslach Burnout Inventory-Students Survey (MBI-SS)

  A scale measuring burnout (Gumz et al., 2013; Maslach \& Jackson, 1981). Higher scores indicate more burnout.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2)

• UCLA Loneliness Scale (UCLA)

  A scale measuring loneliness severity (Döring \& Bortz, 1993; Russell et al., 1980). Higher scores indicate more loneliness.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2)

• Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)

  A scale measuring psychological resilience (Connor \& Davidson, 2003; Sarubin et al., 2015). Higher scores indicate more resilience.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2)

• Social closeness (IOS per profession)

  A scale measuring the felt closeness between persons or groups/communities using a visual representation (Aron et al., 1992; Kinnunen \& Windmann, 2013). Higher score indicates more social closeness.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2)

• Interprofessionalism Scale (IPAS-D)

  A scale (Norris et al., 2015; Pedersen et al., 2020) measuring attitudes that relate to the Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (IPEC Report, 2011). Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward collaborative practice.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2)

• Social Support Scale (F-SozU K-6)

  A scale measuring the subjective feeling of having support available (Kliem et al., 2015). Higher scores indicate greater perceived social support.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2)

• Socio-Affective Video Task (SoVT)

  This task assesses behavioral empathy and compassion using emotional video clips (Klimecki et al., 2014). Higher scores indicate more empathy or more compassion.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test), after 4 weeks of empathic listening training (mid-intervention) and after the 4 weeks of compassionate listening training (post-test 1 & 2)

• Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scale for Self and Others (SOCS)

  A scale measuring self-compassion (SOCS-S) and compassion for others (SOCS-O; Gu et al., 2020). Higher scores indicate more compassion.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test), after 4 weeks of empathic listening training (mid-intervention) and after the 4 weeks of compassionate listening training (post-test 1 & 2)

• Mentalization Scale (MENTS)

  A scale measuring the capacity of envisioning one's and others' behaviors with reference to the underlying mental states (Dimitrijević et al., 2018). Higher scores suggesting a more sophisticated capacity for mentalizing.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2).

• Prosodic Features of Vocalized Emotional Expressions

  Acoustic assessment of prosodic speech features during participants' daily Dyad practice, analyzed using audEERING devAIce software. The following parameters will be assessed: pitch (Hz), loudness (unitless), speaking rate (syllables per second), and intonation (unitless).

  Assessed weekly from week 1 to week 8, as part of the Dyad Voice Assessment (DYVA)

• Affect Dimensions of Vocalized Emotional Expressions

  Assessment of continuous affective dimensions of vocalized emotional expressions during participants' daily Dyad practice using audEERING devAIce software. The following parameters will be assessed: arousal, valence, and dominance (each ranging from -1 to 1). Based on arousal-valence scores, the following affect quadrant values will be calculated: high-arousal-high-valence, low-arousal-high-valence, low-arousal-low-valence, and high-arousal-low-valence.

  Assessed weekly from week 1 to week 8, as part of the Dyad Voice Assessment (DYVA)

• Affect Categories of Vocalized Emotional Expressions

  Classification of vocalized emotional expressions into affect categories during participants' daily Dyad practice using audEERING devAIce software. The following categories will be assessed: angry, happy, and sad, expressed as unitless values ranging from 0 to 1 representing category likelihood.

  Assessed weekly from week 1 to week 8, as part of the Dyad Voice Assessment (DYVA)

• Stress intensity

  Custom items based on the Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM; Delahaye et al., 2015; Peacock \& Wong, 1990) measuring stress intensity. Higher scores indicate more intense stress.

  Assessed using an EMA design with five push-notification measurements per day, distributed across five 3-hour intervals, on four days within a two-week period, at pre-test (Baseline) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-intervention).

• Coping strategies

  Custom items based on the Brief-COPE (Carver, 1997; Knoll et al., 2005) and Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ; Garnefski et al., 2001; Loch et al., 2011) measuring Coping Strategies (Acceptance, Positive Reinterpretation, Social Support, Rumination, Self-Blame, Distraction). Higher scores indicate a higher use of the specified coping strategies.

  Assessed using an EMA design with five push-notification measurements per day, distributed across five 3-hour intervals, on four days within a two-week period, at pre-test (Baseline) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-intervention).

• Active Empathic Listening Scale (AELS)

  A scale measuring active empathic listening (Bodie, 2011). Higher scores indicate more active empathic listening.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test), after 4 weeks of empathic listening training (mid-intervention) and after the 4 weeks of compassionate listening training (post-test 1 & 2)

• Attachment behavior (ASQ)

  A self-report questionnaire measuring attachment-related behaviors in interpersonal relationships, including proximity seeking, avoidance, and security (Hexel, 2004). Higher scores indicate more pronounced attachment-related behaviors.

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2)

Secondary Outcomes (20)

• Positive Affect (Affect Grid) (explanatory mechanism)

  Assessed weekly during the course of 8 weeks of intervention

• Emotion Acceptance (EAQ) (explanatory mechanism)

  Assessed weekly during the course of 8 weeks

• Gratitude Questionnaire-6 (GQ-5-G) (explanatory mechanism)

  Assessed weekly during the course of 8 weeks

• Self-Kindness Scale (SCS-SF) (explanatory mechanism)

  Assessed weekly during the course of 8 weeks

• Positive Interpretation Bias (ERT) (explanatory mechanism)

  Assessed at baseline (pre-test) and after the 8-week intervention period (post-test 1 & 2)

Other Outcomes (5)

• Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; pre-screening)

  Assessed before the intervention, only once, to pre-screen out from the study individuals who have clinical levels of depressive symptoms

• Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7; pre-screening)

  Assessed prior to the intervention, only once, to pre-screen out from the study individuals who have clinical levels of anxious symptoms

• Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; pre-screening)

  Assessed before the intervention, only once, to pre-screen out from the study individuals who have high levels of alexithymia

Study Arms (2)

Empathy- and compassion-based socio-emotional mental training (EmCo)

EXPERIMENTAL

The socio-emotional intervention will consist of two 1.5h online onboarding I and II sessions and then 8 weeks of weekly 1.5-hour online coaching sessions with expert teachers as well as daily dyad practice with a partner over 8 weeks.

Behavioral: Experimental: Empathy- and compassion-based socio-emotional mental training (EmCo)

Waitlist Control Group (WCG)

OTHER

Initially, participants in the waitlist control group will not receive the intervention and will be offered the EmCo training only after the intervention group has completed the EmCo training program.

Other: Waitlist Control Group (WCG)

Interventions

Experimental: Empathy- and compassion-based socio-emotional mental training (EmCo) BEHAVIORAL

1. Participants engage in a structured 13-minute partner-based contemplative exercise. Each dyad reflects on two experiences from the previous 24 hours: one involving a difficult emotion and one involving gratitude. Partners take turns speaking while the other listens non-judgmentally. During weeks 1-4, the practice emphasizes empathic listening; during weeks 5-8, compassionate listening. Participants are instructed to attend to bodily sensations associated with the emotions described. The practice aims to improve coping with difficult emotions, empathic and compassionate listening, (self)acceptance, compassion, gratitude, resilience. 2. Participants also attend eight 1.5-hour online group sessions led by Expert Dyad teachers. The coaching sessions help deepen the Dyad practice and educate teachers about body language, coping better with difficult emotions/stress, the benefits of empathy versus compassion and the act of listening from a mindset of empathy versus compassion.

Empathy- and compassion-based socio-emotional mental training (EmCo)

Waitlist Control Group (WCG) OTHER

Participants in the control group will not receive the intervention. They will complete pre- and post-test procedures consisting primarily of self-report questionnaires, and behavioral tasks, as well as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) conducted on four days within two weeks at pre-test and post-test 1 \& 2.

Waitlist Control Group (WCG)

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 65 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Between 18- and 65-years old.
• actively enrolled student at the PMU.
• Proficient in German.
• Informed consent.
• No symptoms of psychiatric disease within the past two years.
• Stable internet access and necessary technical equipment (computer or laptop or tablet, and mobile phone with internet access).
• No regular contemplative practice (≤ 50 hours total within the past six months); healthy population, non-clinical population.

You may not qualify if:

• Insufficient German proficiency.
• Lack of stable internet access or required devices (computer or laptop or tablet, and mobile phone with internet access).
• No informed consent.
• Not actively enrolled at PMU.
• Regular contemplative practice (\> 50 hours in the past six months (e.g., dyad, mindfulness, compassion-based practices).
• Current psychiatric diagnosis or therapy, or reaching screening cutoffs on:
• Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; Martin et al., 2006; Löwe et al., 2004; Cutoff ≥ 10),
• Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7; Löwe et al., 2007; Spitzer et al., 2006; Cutoff ≥ 10),
• Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20; Bagby et al., 1994; Ritz \& Kannapin, 2000; Cutoff ≥ 61)
• Standardized Assessment of Personality - Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS; Moran et al., 2003; Söchtig et al., 2012, Cutoff ≥ 4).
• Moreover, participants endorsing suicidality on the PHQ-9 will be excluded.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Max Planck Social Neuroscience Lab: lead
• Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität (PMU): collaborator

Related Publications (78)

• 1. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

  BACKGROUND

• 2. Auerbach, R. P., Mortier, P., Bruffaerts, R., Alonso, J., Benjet, C., Cuijpers, P., Demyttenaere, K., Ebert, D. D., Green, J. G., Hasking, P., Murray, E., Nock, M. K., Pinder-Amaker, S., Sampson, N. A., Stein, D. J., Vilagut, G., Zaslavsky, A. M., Kessler, R. C., & WHO WMH-ICS Collaborators. (2018). WHO World Mental Health Surveys International College Student Project: Prevalence and distribution of mental disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(7), 623-638. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000362

  BACKGROUND

• 3. Auerbach, R. P., Mortier, P., Bruffaerts, R., Murray, E., & Sampson, N., et al. (2016). Mental disorders among college students in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Psychological Medicine, 46(14), 2955-2970. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716001665

  BACKGROUND

• 4. Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of psychosomatic research, 38(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90005-1

  BACKGROUND

• 5. Barbosa, P., Raymond, G., Zlotnick, C., Wilk, J., Toomey III, R., & Mitchell III, J. (2013). Mindfulness-based stress reduction training is associated with greater empathy and reduced anxiety for graduate healthcare students. Education for health, 26(1), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.112794

  BACKGROUND

• 6. Beblo, T., Scheulen, C., Fernando, S. C., Griepenstroh, J., Aschenbrenner, S., Rodewald, K. & Driessen, M. (2011). Psychometrische Analyse eines neuen Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Akzeptanz von unangenehmen und angenehmen Gefühlen (FrAGe). Zeitschrift Für Psychiatrie, Psychologie Und Psychotherapie, 59(2), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1024/1661-4747/a000063

  BACKGROUND

• 7. Beck, R. S., Daughtridge, R., & Sloane, P. D. (2002). Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 15(1), 25-38.

  BACKGROUND

• 8. Beierlein, C., Kemper, C. J., Kovaleva, A., & Rammstedt, B. (2012). Kurzskala zur Messung des zwischenmenschlichen Vertrauens: die Kurzskala Interpersonales Vertrauen (KUSIV3). (GESIS-Working Papers, 2012/22). Mannheim: GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-312126

  BACKGROUND

• 9. Bodie, G. D. (2011). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and Evidence of Validity Within the Interpersonal Domain. Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2011.583495

  BACKGROUND

• 10. Bullock, G., Kraft, L., Amsden, K., Gore, W., Prengle, B., Wimsatt, J., Ledbetter, L., Covington, K., & Goode, A. (2017). The prevalence and effect of burnout on graduate healthcare students. Canadian medical education journal, 8(3), e90-e108. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/36890

  BACKGROUND

• 11. Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: Consider the brief cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92-100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6

  BACKGROUND

• 12. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). Perceived Stress Scale [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02889-000

  BACKGROUND

• 13. Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and anxiety, 18(2), 76-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113

  BACKGROUND

• 14. Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 410-429. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000138

  BACKGROUND

• 15. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1980, 10, p. 85. https://www.uv.es/friasnav/Davis_1980.pdf

  BACKGROUND

• 16. DeBruine, L. & Jones, B. (2017). Face Research Lab London Set. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5047666.v5

  BACKGROUND

• 17. Delahaye, M., Stieglitz, R. D., Graf, M., Keppler, C., Maes, J., & Pflueger, M. (2015). German translation and validation of the stress appraisal measure (SAM). Fortschritte der Neurologie-psychiatrie, 83(5), 276-285. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1399727

  BACKGROUND

• 18. Derksen, F., Bensing, J., & Lagro-Janssen, A. (2013). Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: A systematic review. British Journal of General Practice, 63(606), e76-e84. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660814

  BACKGROUND

• 19. Dimitrijević, A., Hanak, N., Altaras Dimitrijević, A., & Jolić Marjanović, Z. (2018). The Mentalization Scale (MentS): A self-report measure for the assessment of mentalizing capacity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(3), 268-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1310730

  BACKGROUND

• 20. Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (1993). Psychometrische Einsamkeitsforschung: Deutsche Neukonstruktion der UCLA Loneliness Scale. Diagnostica, 39(3), 224-239.

  BACKGROUND

• 21. Gandía-Carbonell, N., Molla-Esparza, C., Lorente, S., Viguer, P., & Losilla, J. M. (2025). Strategies to assess and promote the socio-emotional competencies of university students in the socio-educational and healthcare fields: A scoping review. PLoS One, 20(5), e0324531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324531

  BACKGROUND

• 22. Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual differences, 30(8), 1311-1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00113-6

  BACKGROUND

• 23. Godara, M., Hecht, M., & Singer, T. (2024). Training-related improvements in mental well-being through reduction in negative interpretation bias: A randomized trial of online socio-emotional dyadic and mindfulness interventions. Journal of Affective Disorders, 354, 662-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.03.037

  BACKGROUND

• 24. Godara, M., Silveira, S., Matthäus, H., Heim, C., Voelkle, M., Hecht, M., Binder, E. B., & Singer, T. (2021). Investigating differential effects of socio-emotional and mindfulness-based online interventions on mental health, resilience and social capacities during the COVID-19 pandemic: The study protocol. PLOS ONE, 16(11), e0256323. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256323

  BACKGROUND

• 25. Godara, M. & Singer, T. (2024a). 10-Week Trajectories of Candidate Psychological Processes Differentially Predict Mental Health Gains from Online Dyadic Versus Mindfulness Interventions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine 13 (11), 3295. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113295

  BACKGROUND

• 26. Godara, M. & Singer, T. (2024b). Resilient Stress Reactivity Profiles Predict Mental Health Gains from Online Contemplative Training: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Personalized Medicine 14 (5), 493. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14050493

  BACKGROUND

• 27. Griffiths, S., Jarrold, C., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2015). Feedback training induces a bias for detecting happiness or fear in facial expressions that generalises to a novel task. Psychiatry Research, 230(3), 951-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.11.007

  BACKGROUND

• 28. Gu, J., Baer, R., Cavanagh, K., Kuyken, W., & Strauss, C. (2019). Development and psychometric properties of the Sussex-Oxford compassion scales (SOCS). Assessment, 27(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119860911

  BACKGROUND

• 29. Gumz, A., Erices, R., Brähler, E., & Zenger, M. (2013). Faktorstruktur und Gütekriterien der deutschen Übersetzung des Maslach-Burnout-Inventars für Studierende von Schaufeli et al. (MBI-SS) [Factorial structure and psychometric criteria of the German translation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Version by Schaufeli et al. (MBI-SS)]. PPmP: Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie, 63(2), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1323695

  BACKGROUND

• 30. Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British journal of clinical psychology, 44(2), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505X29657

  BACKGROUND

• 31. Hexel, M. (2004). Validierung der deutschen Version des Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ) bei Personen mit und ohne psychiatrische Diagnosen. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 33(2), 79-90. Hogrefe Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1026/0084-5345.33.2.79

  BACKGROUND

• 32. Hudecek, M. F. C., Blabst, N., Morgen, B., & Lermer, E. (2021). Eindimensionale Skala zur Messung von Dankbarkeit (GQ-5-G). Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS). https://doi.org./10.6102/zis300

  BACKGROUND

• 33. Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on aging, 26(6), 655-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574

  BACKGROUND

• 34. Hupfeld, J., & Ruffieux, N. (2011). Validierung einer deutschen Version der Self-Compassion Scale (SCS-D). Zeitschrift Für Klinische Psychologie Und Psychotherapie, 40(2), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/a000088

  BACKGROUND

• 35. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. General hospital psychiatry, 4(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-8343(82)90026-3

  BACKGROUND

• 36. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016

  BACKGROUND

• 37. Kinnunen, S. P., & Windmann, S. (2013). Inclusion of Other in Self Scale--German Version [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t62377-000

  BACKGROUND

• 38. Kisley, M. A., Beblo, T., & Lac, A. (2025). Emotion Acceptance Questionnaire (EAQ): Factor Analysis and Psychometric Evaluation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 107(4), 516-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2024.2444448

  BACKGROUND

• 39. Klein, E. M., Brähler, E., Dreier, M. et al. (2016). The German version of the Perceived Stress Scale - psychometric characteristics in a representative German community sample. BMC Psychiatry 16, 159 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0875-9

  BACKGROUND

• 40. Kliem, S., Mößle, T., Rehbein, F., Hellmann, D. F., Zenger, M., & Brähler, E. (2015). A brief form of the Perceived Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU) was developed, validated, and standardized. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 68(5), 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.003

  BACKGROUND

• 41. Klimecki, O. M., Leiberg, S., Ricard, M., & Singer, T. (2014). Differential pattern of functional brain plasticity after compassion and empathy training. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 9(6), 873-879. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst060

  BACKGROUND

• 42. Knoll, N., Rieckmann, N., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Coping as a mediator between personality and stress outcomes: a longitudinal study with cataract surgery patients. European Journal of Personality, 19(3), 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.546

  BACKGROUND

• 43. Kok, B. E., & Singer, T. (2017a). Phenomenological fingerprints of four meditations: Differential state changes in affect, mind-wandering, meta-cognition, and interoception before and after daily practice across 9 months of training. Mindfulness, 8(1), 218-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0594-9

  BACKGROUND

• 44. Kok, B. E., & Singer, T. (2017b). Effects of contemplative dyads on engagement and perceived social connectedness over 9 months of mental training: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(2), 126-134. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3360

  BACKGROUND

• 45. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2003). The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical care, 41(11), 1284-1292. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000093487.78664.3c

  BACKGROUND

• 46. Liedtke, C., Kohl, W., Kret, M. E., & Koelkebeck, K. (2018). Emotion recognition from faces with in-and out-group features in patients with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 227, 817-823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.085

  BACKGROUND

• 47. Loch, N., Hiller, W., & Witthöft, M. (2011). Der Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ). Erste teststatistische Überprüfung einer deutschen Adaption [The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ). Psychometric evaluation of a German adaptation]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie: Forschung und Praxis, 40(2), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/a000079

  BACKGROUND

• 48. Löwe, B., Kroenke, K., Herzog, W., & Gräfe, K. (2004). Measuring depression outcome with a brief self-report instrument: sensitivity to change of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Journal of affective disorders, 81(1), 61-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(03)00198-8

  BACKGROUND

• 49. Löwe, B., Müller, S., Brähler, E., Kroenke, K., Albani, C., & Decker, O. (2007). Validierung und Normierung eines kurzen Selbstratinginstrumentes zur Generalisierten Angst (GAD-7) in einer repräsentativen Stichprobe der deutschen Allgemeinbevölkerung. PPmP-Psychotherapie Psychosomatik· Medizinische Psychologie, 57(02), A050.

  BACKGROUND

• 50. Martin, A., Rief, W., Klaiberg, A., & Braehler, E. (2006). Validity of the brief patient health questionnaire mood scale (PHQ-9) in the general population. General hospital psychiatry, 28(1), 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2005.07.003

  BACKGROUND

• 51. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of organizational behavior 2(2), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

  BACKGROUND

• 52. Matthäus, H., Heim, C., Voelke, M., Singer, T. (2024a). Reducing Neuroendocrine Psychosocial Stress Response Through Socio-emotional Dyadic but not Mindfulness Online Training. Frontiers in Endocrinology 15, 1277929. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2024.1277929

  BACKGROUND

• 53. Matthäus, H., Godara, M., Silveira, S. J., Hecht, M., Voelkle, M. C., Singer, T. (2024b). Loneliness through the Power of Practicing Together: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Online Dyadic Socio-Emotional vs. Mindfulness-Based Training. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21(5), 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050570

  BACKGROUND

• 54. McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J.-A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 112-127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112

  BACKGROUND

• 55. Moran, P., Leese, M., Lee, T., Walters, P., Thornicroft, G., & Mann, A. (2003). Standardised Assessment of Personality-Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS): preliminary validation of a brief screen for personality disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 183(3), 228-232. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.183.3.228

  BACKGROUND

• 56. Nilges, P. & Essau, C. (2021). DASS. Depressions-Angst-Stress-Skalen - deutschsprachige Kurzfassung [Verfahrensdokumentation und Fragebogen mit Auswertung]. In Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID) (Hrsg.), Open Test Archive. Trier: ZPID. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4579

  BACKGROUND

• 57. Norris, J., Carpenter, J. G., Eaton, J., Guo, J. W., Lassche, M., Pett, M. A., & Blumenthal, D. K. (2015). The development and validation of the interprofessional attitudes scale: assessing the interprofessional attitudes of students in the health professions. Academic Medicine, 90(10), 1394-https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000764

  BACKGROUND

• 58. O'Malley, B., Linz, R., Engert, V., Singer, T. (2024). Testing the monitor and acceptance theory: the role of training-induced changes in monitoring-and acceptance-related capacities after attention-based, socio-emotional, or socio-cognitive mental training in reducing cortisol stress reactivity. Stress 27 (1), 2345906. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890.2024.2345906

  BACKGROUND

• 59. Paulus, C. M. (2009). Der Saarbrücker Persönlichkeitsfragebogen SPF(IRI) zur Messung von Empathie: Psychometrische Evaluation der deutschen Version des Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.

  BACKGROUND

• 60. Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. (1990). The stress appraisal measure (SAM): A multidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress medicine, 6(3), 227-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2460060308

  BACKGROUND

• 61. Pedersen, T. H., Cignacco, E., Meuli, J., Habermann, F., Berger-Estilita, J., & Greif, R. (2020). The German interprofessional attitudes scale: Translation, cultural adaptation, and validation. GMS Journal for Medical Education, 37(3), Doc32. https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001325

  BACKGROUND

• 62. Prendergast, M., Cardoso Pinto, A. M., Harvey, C. J., & Muir, E. (2024). Burnout in early year medical students: experiences, drivers and the perceived value of a reflection-based intervention. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04948-0

  BACKGROUND

• 63. Qualter, P., Petersen, K., Barreto, M., Victor, C., Hammond, C., & Arshad, S. A. (2021). Exploring the frequency, intensity, and duration of loneliness: a latent class analysis of data from the BBC loneliness experiment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 12027. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212027

  BACKGROUND

• 64. Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250-255. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.702

  BACKGROUND

• 65. Ritz, T., & Kannapin, O. (2000). Zur Konstruktvalidität einer deutschen Fassung der Toronto Alexithymia Scale [The construct validity of a German version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 21(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1024/0170-1789.21.1.49

  BACKGROUND

• 66. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472-480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472

  BACKGROUND

• 67. Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect grid: a single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(3), 493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.493

  BACKGROUND

• 68. Sarubin, N., Gutt, D., Giegling, I., Bühner, M., Hilbert, S., Krähenmann, O., Wolf, M., Jobst, A., Sabaß, L., Rujescu, D., Falkai, P., & Padberg, F. (2015). Erste Analyse der psychometrischen Eigenschaften und Struktur der deutschsprachigen 10- und 25-Item Version der Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). European Journal of Health Psychology, 23(5). https://doi.org/10.1026/0943-8149/a000142

  BACKGROUND

• 69. Silveira, S., Godara, M., & Singer, T. (2023). Boosting Empathy and Compassion Through Mindfulness-Based and Socioemotional Dyadic Practice: Randomized Controlled Trial With App-Delivered Trainings. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25(1), e45027. https://doi.org/10.2196/45027

  BACKGROUND

• 70. Sinclair, S., McClement, S., Raffin-Bouchal, S., Hack, T. F., Hagen, N. A., McConnell, S., & Chochinov, H. M. (2016). Compassion in health care: an empirical model. Journal of pain and symptom management, 51(2), 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.10.009

  BACKGROUND

• 71. Singer, T. (2025). A neuroscience perspective on the plasticity of the social and relational brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1547(1), 52-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15319

  BACKGROUND

• 72. Singer, T., & Engert, V. (2019). It matters what you practice: Differential training effects on subjective experience, behavior, brain and body in the ReSource Project. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.005

  BACKGROUND

• 73. Singer, T. & Klimecki, O. (2014). Empathy and compassion. Current Biology 24 (18), S. R875 - R878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.054

  BACKGROUND

• 74. Singer, T., Kok, B. E., Bornemann, B., Bolz, M., & Bochow, C. (2015). The ReSource Project: Background, design, samples, and measurements (1st ed.). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences. https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0003-FEC8-E

  BACKGROUND

• 75. Söchtig, A., Kliem, S., & Kröger, C. (2012). Diagnostik Efficiency of the German Version of the Self-Rated Standardized Assessment of Personality-Abbreviated Scale. Psychopathology, 45(6), 381 - 389. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337970

  BACKGROUND

• 76. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Lowe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10),1092-1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

  BACKGROUND

• 77. Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., Ridgeway, V. A., Soulsby, J. M., & Lau, M. A. (2000). Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 615-623. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.4.615

  BACKGROUND

• 78. Wang, Z., Wu, P., Hou, Y. Guo, J., & Lin, C. (2024) The effects of mindfulness-based interventions on alleviating academic burnout in medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 24, 1414. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18938-4

  BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Psychological Well-Being

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Personal Satisfaction; Behavior

Study Officials

• Tania Singer, Ph.D.

  Social Neuroscience Lab, Max Planck Society

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Central Study Contacts

Lab Manager Social Neuroscience Lab

CONTACT

+49 30 209346-180; office@social.mpg.de

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Masking Details: After pre-screening and randomized allocation to the two groups, participants and coordination staff need to be aware of which intervention arm (EmCo intervention group or WCG group) the participant belongs to in order to be able to group into appropriate coaching slots and onboarding I and II sessions prior to starting the actual 8-week online interventions with daily Dyad practice. Outcome assessors and investigators remain blinded to participant allocation for the duration of the study.
• Purpose: SUPPORTIVE CARE
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: January 12, 2026
• First Posted: February 12, 2026
• Study Start: February 16, 2026
• Primary Completion (Estimated): July 10, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): October 10, 2026
• Last Updated: February 12, 2026

Record last verified: 2025-12

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share